Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


(2)
Message 4 of 47 (609324)
03-18-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Theodoric
03-18-2011 9:47 AM


Ok, let's start off with his assertion of "proof exists." From what I gather, it's "Proof exists 'somewhere'."
As it's his belief:
"I believe proof exists somewhere."
But he doesn't believe we have the proof (beyond our means to detect), so:
"I believe proof exists somewhere (out of my perception)."
But beliefs should be based on perception, so his belief of "proof exists" translates to:
"I perceive proof exists somewhere out of my perception."
But if it's out of his perception then he isn't perceiving it. So we see that this is just his imagination.
So he is imagining a state of certainty and then using that to support his belief.
That's really retarded.
"Somewhere out there there is proof I'm a frog. So I must be a frog!"
People use magical terms -- placeholder concepts. "Ghost" is one of these.
Have him define "ghost." REALLY define it. He believes EVP is evidence of ghosts, but what is a ghost? He is applying "ghost" as an explanation for phenomena but was the concept built up from phenomena? No! The concept has no hard edges. You can replace "Ghost" with "Something" and you have just as much information.
"A book fell unexpectedly. A ghost did it."
"A book fell unexpectedly. Something did it."
It is an explanation of, "I have no explanation," that pretends to be more. Just like "Goddidit."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Theodoric, posted 03-18-2011 9:47 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 35 of 47 (609790)
03-23-2011 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Taz
03-19-2011 12:40 AM


"Accept the possibility" is too strong, IMO, as it says that one is considering it. But there's no reason to consider it. Building from the evidence, there is no such thing. So, properly, the concept should be ignored so one does not inadvertently force the pattern to fit random phenomena.
If ghosts were to appear, defined by the evidence, then you have something. But until then it's a dangerous concept to the belief-forming structure because ghosts are disconnected from reality by definition. It is too filled with gaps in which the viewer might leak parts of himself into what he is viewing.
Accepting the possibility of ghosts is like seriously considering whether a big sky daddy burnt a representation of a Renaissance depiction of an itinerant preacher who some claim claimed to be the son of the big sky daddy into a tortilla.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Taz, posted 03-19-2011 12:40 AM Taz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024